The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1903. OUR SCHOOL GRANTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 231, 28 September 1903, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1903. OUR SCHOOL GRANTS.

For the cause that lacks assistance. Far the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And tlie good that we eon da.

We are in ful sympathy with tihe Pi-xnliier _ deteirmirnatiioa to reduce the colony's public expendL'tiiire. But we do .not think tihiat our Edu<_it_a_. system offers 'hhe best field for economy. The letter from the AuckVamd Edueal_on Boaird, road by Mt Baume before the IToiif-e cm Saturday, sihiows dearly that as far as tihds district _j concerned the building gramfe aire lafitiogieiilh_r innde-

qirate for our rwjU'irement-. Oompla.iinius to tihe same effect axe made in ollher qua.rieTs; a.nd the 'general fceiling of '(ihe Hous-e and the country seeims to be tihlait, in vfiew of the closer settlement of the rural district*, larger ftxpeniditinv is absolutely needed to eiaable our education system to cope wiiilh the cooistefntly increasing demands made upon it. The reply made by Mr Seddon to members who pointed out tlvase fatts can Ihiaxdly he termed satisfactory. Tihe Premier said itthait as certaiin districts hiad deliberately spemt more tili>a,n their buLldilng a-lliowamce they imusffc take „is eoinsequeniee?, and get out of tihear diffieuilties as beist tihey cm. This may be logical, but at least, as far ia!S Auckland is concerned, the-re is a great deai to be said •on.the -other side <jf ibhe ease.

The fact is that for years past Auckland educ*aitii;on_l district has been most unjustly treated in the matter of building graimts. The Board's Miter produced by Mr Baume ptoiimts out that these gnamta are supposed to be distrfbusted "on the basis of the average attendance in itlhe severail education districts, with adjustments acorn__ng to tihe number of schools 'and the increase of p-pidtsitiom An the districts." Out of 121,000 sehoolchikkm in the ooflsotny, AudeJamsd h~.s 30,000; while _?ortih Canterbury and Oil-go combined have 29,000. Yet itftoese two drsltriebs received last year £12,800, while Auckland, With 1000 pnpfh _l„r_, received £9950, or nearly £3000 less. On am 'average attendance basis, Auckland 'Sihould' (have received 'Bt (feast £12,000,.which, would have more than covered hue fii__ni_al deficiency for. tflie pa.!; year. When '<ye conakler Tihe nature of the work 'to be done wiitih -abase building grants, 'tihe siHare ail lotted 'to Auckland becomes even more difficult'to justify. In Otago and North Canterbury there are 34 stone and brick Betook \v!»kih require .otmpairativeily little expenditure iim repairs or renewal!. In Auckland all tide buildings but two are of wood. Moreover, Auckland is much ii_e largest educational dii-trict in the 00-omy. and lits .lack of interhiail corranuimoainkm compels the erection of a lairger propoiltiox-Übe number of sdhootls fhain are required in the Southern districts. !In the face of all this, one would like. I to.know exiaetly whlat is tihe natuie ef the ''aidjustment" hy virtue of which AuckJa.nd draws about SO per cent. Jess ithiain Iher just _hane of the aiwiual grant for eduoatiloTUail buildings.

But the further we go into the details of these education grants the more inconsistent they appear. Last month Sir William Russell drew the attention of the House to certain extraordinary anomalies in the allocation of this fund. We then pointed out that while our school attendance had risen by 2041 between 1901 and 1903 in Auckland district, the building grant had been at the rate of £9 11/9 per head of this increase. In Wellington, however, the building grant for the same period works out at £19 19/, or more than twice the Auckland rate. But when we come to the South Island, tihe disparity between the building grants for the various educational districts becomes simply astounding. Tn South Canterbury there was an increase of 19 pupils, and the building gra.nt was at the rate of £194 14/3 per head. In North Canterbury the increase was 49, and the building grant was _t the rate of £251 14/8 per head. In Otago the increase was 14, against Auckland's 2041, and for tihis district, much smaller than Auckland, with a far larger proportion of substantial schools, and only 11,S00 children, against Auckland's 30,000, the building grant was, on the average basis, nearly 100 times that of Auckland, or at the rate of £592 17/1 per head. Perhaps it is almost superfluous, to add that in Westland £1500 has been spent in additional schools and repairs, while the attendance has actually decreased by G2. It is really difficult to do justice to these outrageous •■adjustments" in ordinary language. While the department has declined to make any allowance for teachers' residences at new schools, or to rebuild worn-out schools in Auckland district, Canterbury. Otago and Westland, not to mention Wellington, have been revelling in'building grants that surpass in magnitude our wildest dreams. It is tune that something was done to remedy these monstrous inconsistencies/ and we hope

that Auckland members will not rest till they get something approximating to justice in the way of education grants for this despised and neglected district.